No Breast Cancer Risk Seen With IVF


Dutch study finds protective effect in some instances.

Women undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment did not seem to have an increased risk of breast cancer years later, according to a large Dutch study.

After a median follow-up of more than 2 decades, breast cancer incidence among IVF patients was relatively comparable (standardized incident ratio 1.01, 95% CI, 0.93-1.09) with a subfertile non-IVF comparison group (SIR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88-1.15), reported Alexandria W. van den Belt-Dusebout, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Cumulative incidence of breast cancer at age 55 was also nonsignificant when comparing the two groups (3.0% for IVF group and 2.9% for non-IVF group, P=0.85), the authors wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The group also noted that, in some IVF patients, the risk seemed to be lower.

In an email to MedPage Today, van den Belt-Dusebout said that because the use of IVF is relatively recent, long-term breast cancer risk was not yet known.

“Earlier studies [on IVF] that reported no increase of breast cancer based their conclusions on shorter follow-up and smaller numbers of breast cancers, whereas some studies reported increased risks in subgroups of IVF treated women,” she said. “Because of the conflicting results in the literature and methodological limitations of earlier studies, even in reviews and a meta-analysis, a large study with long follow-up was needed.”

This study included patients from a historical cohort examining subfertility (the OMEGA study) over a mean period of 21.1 years following treatment Overall, the authors looked at data from 25,108 women who underwent IVF treatment from 1983 to 1995. Women had a mean age of 32.8 at baseline and a mean number of 3.6 IVF cycles.

They found 839 cases of invasive breast cancer and 109 cases of in situ breast cancer during the follow-up period.

 They found no increase in the incidence of breast cancer after ≥20 years following treatment in either group (SIR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.15 in IVF group vs SIR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82-1.29 in non-IVF group).

The authors reported that IVF treatment appeared to reduce a woman’s risk of breast cancer in some instances, specifically an increased number of IVF cycles (seven or more) was associated with a significantly decreased risk (HR 0.55, 95% CI o.39-0.77) compared with one to two cycles (P=0.001 for trend).

“The finding that more IVF cycles was associated with further decreases in risk is intriguing,” said Nanette Santoro, MD, of University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, in an email to MedPage Today. “Although the trend was not large, it implies that IVF cycles, which may expose women to high levels of both estrogen and progesterone, may actually be protective in a manner similar to how pregnancy is protective against breast cancer.”

Santoro, who was not involved with the research, added that that the findings of the overall study support the widely held belief that IVF is a short exposure that should not have a major impact on a woman’s breast cancer risk.

Van den Belt-Dusebout said she was surprised by both the reduced risk associated with an increasing amount of IVF cycles and among women who responded poorly to their first IVF cycle (<4 collected oocytes versus >4 collected oocytes, HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.96).

 “This can be explained by the fact that these women, like women who respond poorly to their first ovarian stimulation, more often reach menopause at an early age,” she said. “An early age at menopause lowers the risk of developing breast cancer.”

However, not all IVF patients experienced a decline in breast cancer risk. Parous women (who had previously given birth) were linked with a significant increased risk in breast cancer versus nulliparous women (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.73). Women who were age 40 and older at first birth did have a more than two-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with women younger than age 25 (HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.71-3.73).

Study limitations included more missing data in the non-IVF group (33% versus 16% in the IVF group). In addition, age at menopause and menopausal status were unknown for most women, because most women were not postmenopausal at the questionnaire completion and the study was based on IVF treatment protocols used until 1995.

Van den Belt-Dusebout told MedPage Today that group team plans to address these issues, including further study of the OMEGA cohort to identify postmenopausal breast cancer risk, as well as a separate study examining women undergoing IVF treatment from 1995 to 2001.

“It is not very likely that more recently treated women would have an increased risk of breast cancer, because these protocols are more like the natural menstrual cycle … the downregulation phase is shorter and the stimulation is milder than in the earlier periods,” she said.

Why Couples Turn to In-Vitro Fertilization, Even When They Can’t Afford It.


The new documentary HAVEABABY follows couples as they give up everything to try and conceive through in-vitro fertilization. Now its filmmaker is coming out about her own infertility.

For most of us, the ability to procreate seems a given, whether we plan to act on it or not, and when we think something is a given, we take it lightly. On April 24th, National Infertility Awareness Week (#NIAW) begins, and people like me will be shouting from Internet rooftops about our most intimate failures in our attempts to have a child. Why would we go public about such private matters, and why does “awareness” matter? That term is thrown around a lot, especially on social media, where we are all subjected daily to perfect strangers spilling their guts for vanity or attention rather than for the public good.

But here’s why you should pay attention during NIAW. Over 7 million Americans are unable to naturally conceive or carry a baby to term, and the majority of them feel vulnerable, isolated, and alone. Chances are you know someone who is struggling with infertility, but you may have no idea how hard it really is for them. Infertility is usually kept secret; it’s about sex, it’s about loss and failure, and bottom line is, it’s a drag. So it’s no surprise that people aren’t clamoring to speak out about it. When we do speak out about it, more often than not, well-meaning friends and family want to solve the problem with quick advice, which only makes matters worse: “Why don’t you just adopt?” and “You just need to relax!” or “Maybe it’s time to move on” are the most common responses. (Here’s a useful guide from our friends at RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association for those of you wondering, well, what the heck am I supposed to say, and why don’t they just adopt?)

Recently, celebrities like Tyra Banks and Chrissy Teigen have been outspoken about their infertility struggles, sometimes at their own peril. Tired of being publicly prodded as to why they didn’t have children, Teigen and Banks “outed” themselves on live television, urging people to “stop asking,” the implication being that the people asking had zero awareness and therefore no sensitivity to the pain these two women endured in their attempts to build a family. I am grateful for their courage in bringing visibility to the issue, but I fear the #StopAsking campaign may give the impression that silence is the solution, and that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

For the last two years I have been filming a documentary with couples from all across the country who “came out” about their infertility in hopes of winning a contest. Unlike Teigen and Banks, who have the financial means to pursue any path to parenthood that they choose, the people in my film don’t have that same privilege, and they believe that this social media contest is their best hope at having a family. Baring their souls online, they compete for a free round of in vitro fertilization worth thousands of dollars, a procedure most insurance companies do not cover. Critics see this contest as an exploitative marketing ploy, but to my surprise most of the contestants said it was cathartic to “out” themselves, and that their videos helped educate the people closest to them about the reality of their condition. The film, HAVEABABY, premieres at the Tribeca Film Festival on Thursday night, so I’m putting my subjects’ courage to the ultimate test. And, as I promised them, I am “outing” myself, too, now that the film is being released.

Over the last three years, my husband and I have struggled with our own infertility issues, during which he was diagnosed with testicular cancer. I was shocked by my ignorance about my own fertility, and bowled over by the financial and emotional costs of treatment. California, like the majority of the United States, does not mandate infertility health care coverage, even for cancer patients, so our costs were 100 percent out of pocket. It felt like the doctor took over our bedroom and our savings account all at once, and it put an incredible strain on our marriage. Thankfully, my husband’s cancer was treatable, and is in remission. I wish I could say the same about our infertility.
In researching possible financial solutions to our own situation, I came across Sher Fertility’s “I Believe” video journal contest. This competition struck me as a perfectly absurd distillation of the overwhelming world of reproductive medicine in which I now found myself. I knew right away that this was a film I had to make. Working on the project, I’ve met people from diverse racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds who have mortgaged their homes, taken second jobs, moved in with their parents, and even sold livestock in order to pursue medical treatment for their infertility. The one thing we all share is the feeling that this condition is not taken seriously and is often misunderstood.
Many other developed countries consider infertility a legitimate medical condition and offer some level of insurance coverage for IVF, but most American health insurance companies don’t view having a child as a medical necessity, and many won’t even cover testing in search of a diagnosis. At worst, reproductive medicine is seen as a luxury in our culture, a selfish and elective procedure much like plastic surgery, for a stereotypically wealthy patient who waited too long to have children. Never mind that the World Health Organization classified infertility as a legitimate disease in 2009. Looking back on my past insurance claims, I found it noteworthy that multiple knee surgeries to support my amateur athletic pursuits were never audited as a questionable lifestyle choice, but somehow my choice to conceive a child was.
Having dealt with both cancer and infertility in the same stretch, it was a striking comparison for me how supported we felt around the one, and how alone we felt in the other. But just a generation ago, there was a culture of secrecy around cancer, too. Cultural awareness about cancer has grown in leaps and bounds in the last twenty years precisely because people started speaking about it, thanks in part to social media and the Internet. Celebrities spoke out, and average Americans spoke out. Thankfully, there are now vast support networks for cancer patients, and some day, we may even find a cure.
I suspect there may be no “cure” for infertility, but even a small dose of education around this too-often taboo subject could help protect other couples from the grief that my husband and I have faced. Because I took my fertility for granted, when I made the choice to have a family—which was a very hard choice for me to make, and took longer than I expected—I thought the hard part was done. We never had reason to suspect a medical problem, and by the time it was diagnosed, we had to deal with “advanced maternal age” on top of a plummeting sperm count. After several attempts, I got pregnant for the first time last year, and when we heard our first fetal heartbeat, we held our breath, ever hopeful. Unfortunately, at 10 weeks, I had a miscarriage. My husband and I have never experienced a loss this profound, and we still have not completely recovered. There’s no advice or easy fix for this, we just need time to heal, and we will find our own resolution when we are ready.
While I can’t control my fertility, I can use my skills as a filmmaker to try to give voice to the experience of infertile people, and thereby help raise the critical awareness this community needs in order to move the needle on a biased system. The point of speaking out, during NIAW and beyond, is not to complain or get attention, but to try to transform our suffering into some kind of meaningful change, and awareness is the first step in any cultural shift. By humanizing the individual struggles of men and women with a medical need who choose to build a family through IVF but cannot afford it, my goal is to ignite a conversation about the flipside of reproductive choice: the choice to have a child.

In Vitro Fertilization’s Success Rate Could Improve With Individually Cultured Embryos


The success rate of in vitro fertilization (IVF) is much lower than couples would think. For women believed to have a “top chance of success,” RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association reported, the success rate is 40 percent or more per cycle. But for a majority of women, the success rate is 20-35 percent; each cycle severely impacts a couple’s finances, stress, and emotions. But new research from National Tsing Hua University and the National Research Institutes in Taiwan may have figured out a way to improve these outcomes.

In vitro fertilization

“It will lower the stress level of patients greatly if the number of IVF cycles and embryos transferred can be reduced, while maintaining a promising outcome,” Chihchen Chen, lead researcher, said in a press release. “We are interested in understanding the essential needs of a developing embryo and aiming to improve embryo culture.” Embryos, Chen added, are sensitive to their environments — and understanding this environment will help researchers to promote their growth.

Chen and her team developed a way to culture mouse embryos in a plate of open microwells, or small test tubes, spreading each out so a single well contained one to two embryos. They added a layer of oil over each embryo to prevent them from moving between these wells. By keeping embryos in place, researchers could still “penetrate the system to eventually transfer the embryos to the uterus.”

More importantly, these wells give each embryo their own environment, which makes it easier to determine which embryos are the most viable on a case-by-case basis. With high-resolution time-lapse imaging to track individual development, Chen could actually see embryos successfully developed even when cultured in these tiny wells. The length of time these embryos took to reach certain cell stages was also an accurate predictor of the likelihood they would develop into blastocysts, “providing a simple way to screen and select the most promising early-stage embryos for implantation.”

Chen cited embryos cultured in current IVF treatments are pooled together in smalls drops of fluid before being transferred into the uterus. It’s an efficient method, but it apparently makes implantation less selective. It’s harder for lab technicians to assess an embryo’s viability. Thus this new method could lead to “a more targeted approach to implantation,” cutting both costs and time at the same time it leads to higher success rates.